STATE v. MAHOGANY (2026)

On December 18, 2025, the state filed a bill of information jointly charging defendants, Kevin Nelson and Ronsign Mahogany, with one count each of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute; transactions involving proceeds from drug offenses; and possession of a weapon with a controlled substance; violations of La. R.S. 40:966(B)(1)(b); 40:1041(B); and 14:95(E).¹ The state also separately charged Mahogany with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of La. R.S. 14:95.1. Defendants appeared for arraignment on January 23, 2026 and entered pleas of not guilty. On January 28, 2026, defendants filed an omnibus motion to, inter alia, suppress evidence and statements and the district court held a hearing thereon on April 29, 2026. Following the presentation of evidence, the district court ordered the parties to submit post-hearing memoranda and took the matter under advisement.

On May 12, 2026, Mahogany filed a memorandum in support of the motions to suppress evidence and statements, arguing specifically that Nelson's consent to search the vehicle was provided under duress as a result of the unreasonable duration of the traffic stop and was therefore invalid, rendering the warrantless search of the vehicle unconstitutional. The state filed an opposition on May 27, 2026, asserting that the traffic stop was lawful and supported by probable cause and the smell of marijuana upon the driver's exit from the vehicle independently provided sufficient probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, notwithstanding that the driver subsequently provided valid consent to search.

On June 26, 2026, the district court granted defendants’ motions to suppress evidence and statements. The state now seeks review of the district court's ruling.

Here, the bill of information charged the driver of the vehicle with one count each of illegal window tint and invalid vehicle license, violations of La. R.S. 32:361.1 and 32:51, respectively, both of which Officer Bender testified he personally observed as a basis for initiating the traffic stop. Because he observed the vehicle in violation of the law, the traffic stop was valid, regardless of whether DEA agents were conducting a separate narcotics investigation. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting defendants’ motions to suppress evidence and statements on the basis that the traffic stop was “pretextual and therefore illegal.” See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996).

Additionally, Officer Bender testified that he smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle when the driver exited, which was also depicted in his body camera footage. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently confirmed longstanding jurisprudence that “the odor of marijuana is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a vehicle pursuant to the plain smell doctrine.” State v. Braud, 2025-01526, p. 1 (La. 3/18/26), 431 So.3d 327, 328. Further, “[i]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.” Braud, at pp. 1-2, 431 So.3d at 328, quoting California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 570, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991).

In this case, the odor of marijuana emanating from the lawfully-stopped vehicle constituted sufficient probable cause for officers to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, including the box in the trunk. Accordingly, this writ is granted and the trial court's judgment suppressing the evidence and the defendants’ statements is reversed.

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The state additionally charged defendants jointly with one count each of driving an unregistered vehicle and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of La. R.S. 32:51 and 40:1023 and separately charged Nelson with one count each of illegal window tint; expired temporary plate; and failure to wear a seatbelt, violations of La. R.S. 32:361.1; 47:508; 32:295.1(G)(1)(a), respectively. These charges were not before the district court in the instant proceedings.

Judge Daniel L. Dysart